Does saying I have "functional understanding" of something convey that I understand its functions?
If I say,
"I have a functional understanding of car engines"
does this convey:
- I understand how car engines function (this is what I originally thought)
- My understanding of car engines is functional (which doesn't make much sense, but what I suspect is correct)
So if I wanted to tell someone I understand how a car engine functions, I would say:
"I understand how a car engine functions"
and not:
"I have a functional understanding of car engines"
Functional literacy for example means reading and writing skills that are adequate "to manage daily living and employment tasks that require reading skills beyond a basic level."* That is, you can function.
If you have a functional understanding of car engines, you understand them well enough to do your job (maintaining or perhaps repairing them). You may or may not understand how they themselves function. You can have a functional understanding of something that doesn't itself "function" at all (mathematics, for example, or history).
These phrases align with similar "types" of knowledge; such as book smarts, intelligent on paper, lab smart. Both working knowledge and functional knowledge and the ones above have to do with the less "experienced" forms of knowledge. If you only know 'how it functions' that isn't of too much use if you don't know how it gets fixed.
They make up a spectrum if you will, where on one side you have book smarts from books and on the other side bunker/street smarts earned through experience. Working and functional knowledge seem like they would fall somewhere in the middle; you can talk about how a car works, discuss what something means, but you don't live and breathe that knowledge yet.
You have some grease on your hands, but none under your nails.